BKWSU Charity Commission report

I thought this was interesting.

You know that the BKWSU always present themselves as being run by women for women - God says " Women first " etc?

Well, here is the list of the BKWSU [UK] Trustees ;

MR CHRIS DRAKE
MR DAVID GOODMAN
MR GOVIND VASWANI
MS KAVITA VASWANI
MS SHASHI MEHRA
MR RATMAN THADANI
MR GIRISH WADHWANI
MR MAHESH Patel
MR SANJAY TULSIDAS

Albeit ;

Chief Administrator : Janki Kripalani
Secretary : Jayanti Kripalani

Ah, a traditional family run business!

Here are the professed objects of the Charity ;

(I)TO PROMOTE THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE Hindu RELIGION AND OTHER RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD.
(II) TO PROMOTE STUDIES OF AND RESEARCH IN THE FIELD OF Hindu RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY, Yoga (VARIOUS TECHNIQUES OF CONCENTRATION AS DEFINED AND DISCUSSED IN Hindu SCRIPTURES) AND TO MAKE KNOWN THE RESULTS OF SUCH STUDIES AND RESEARCH.
(III) TO RELIEVE POVERTY, MENTAL AND PHYSICAL SICKNESS AND DISTRESS.

• Why is the BKWSU promoting Bhakti? I am confused.

Can anyone provide me with any Murli references please? That is not what I heard, time and time again, each morning in the Murli. Oh, may be they mean because they believe Abraham, Moses and Jesus are going to come to them to learn Judaism and Christianity.

• What "various" techniques? There is only one technique.

Unless they mean spirit channelling and bhogi trance messengers too.

• Which Hindu scriptures? Can I have some references please?

• When did they ever work to relieve poverty? They must be having a laugh.

May be they think that is 'spiritual poverty' or may be they mean by giving people golden palaces and jewels in the Golden Age?

The report goes on to say, " a wide range of events, including a number of Hindu and other auspicious religious events ... Shiv Ratri ... Rakshabandhan ... Janamashtmi ... Diwali etc ".

If was a BK, I would be feeling very confused and uncomfortable to be going along with this. In fact, when I was a BK, I was very uncomfortable.

Am I being too harsh on them?

Relieve poverty ... my god ... one of their main aims is to amass funds, with no regard to others ability to give.

I very much appreciate this posting as I have been looking into the BKs charitable status in Australia. It seems the criterea are very similar in the UK as Australia - everything they (the BKs) have stated resonates with the requirements for obtaining charitable status here. If the BKs were to state their true agenda there is no way on God's green earth they would get out of paying taxes - they would be treated as a sect (like Scientology).

They have effectively lied to avoid tax, something I have been suspicious of for some time. No doubt they believed the world would end before the Taxation Comissioner found out. I think they have been incredibly naive but what they have done is very illegal. In fact, criminal (no exaggeration). Next chance I get I will post the Australian Taxation Offices definition of what is a charitable purpose and what is not and I think you will see what I mean.

Here is an extract of The Australian Taxation Offices' definition of what contributes a charitable purpose and institution and therefore allows tax relief:

Taxation Ruling TR 2005/21. Income tax and fringe benefits tax: charities

For a purpose to fall within the technical legal meaning of 'charitable' it must be:


· beneficial to the community, or deemed to be for the public benefit by legislation applying for that purpose; and
· The benefit of a charitable purpose need not be for the whole community; it is sufficient that it is for an appreciable section of the public.
However, this public benefit requirement does not apply where the charitable purpose is the relief of poverty. Those who benefit from such a charity need not be a section of the public.

Charitable purposes are commonly grouped, following the terminology used in The Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income Tax v. Pemsel [1891] AC 531; [1891-4] All ER Rep 28, as the 'four heads of charity':


· the relief of poverty;
· the advancement of education;
· the advancement of religion; and
· other purposes beneficial to the community.

From the above you can see where the BKs have sourced the wording they have used re: professed objects of the 'charity'.

Purposes which are not charitable:

The purpose is to confer private benefits.
Purposes that seek to benefit persons or entities in capacities other than as members of (a section of) the public are not charitable.
The purpose is vague or has insufficient value for the community
A purpose is not charitable if the value or benefit of the purpose cannot be clearly identified or it is insufficient.

Charitable institutions and charitable funds:

The tax law distinguishes charitable institutions and charitable funds. Whether a charity has the character of an institution or a fund is a question of fact.

Charitable institutions:

An institution is an establishment, organisation or association, instituted for the promotion of some object, especially one of public or general utility. It connotes a body called into existence to translate a defined purpose into a living and active principle. It may be constituted in different ways including as a corporation, unincorporated association or trust. However, it involves more than mere incorporation, or trustees merely administering trust property in accordance with a trust deed. It does not include a structure controlled and operated by family members and friends, as explained in Pamas Foundation (Inc.) v. DFC of T 92 ATC 4161; (1992) 23 ATR 189.

Charitable funds

A fund is a pool of money or property that is set aside and managed by a trustee or trustees for the purpose of making distributions to other persons or entities, or for making the property available for its purposes, or both.

Determining the purpose of a particular charitable institution or fund

Charitable institution:

The purpose of a charitable institution is determined having regard to its constitution, any legislation governing its operation, its activities, history and control.

An institution is accepted as charitable if its sole purpose is charitable. A charitable institution does not have any purpose that is independent of its charitable purpose.

Charitable fund:

The purpose of a charitable fund is found by reference to the terms of its constitutive documents (primarily the instrument of trust or the will) and any relevant legislation

For a fund to be established for public charitable purposes, it is necessary that it be exclusively charitable. If the trustees of a fund can apply it for some purposes that are charitable and some that are not charitable, the fund is not established for public charitable purposes.

The law is a language of its own, but I have no doubt that the BKs would lose any argument it had with the Tax Commissioner if it went to court - to the extent that Dadi and Jayanti could be in very serious trouble for misrepresenting the true agenda of the BKs as an essentially benign Hindu one.

ex-l and primal.logic - thanks very much for this revealing information.

They have effectively lied to avoid tax

My impression of the BKWSU was that they consider themselves to be above and beyond corporeal legal systems, and are bound only by Shrimat and universal laws (eg karma). I actually have a lot of sympathy for that position, having anarchist tendancies myself...

But honesty is certainly thrown out the window by them in their dealings, not only with the taxman, but with the public in general. I say it is dishonest to represent themselves as a "university" when they are in fact a religious cult, just as it is dishonest to represent themselves as "promoting the Hindu religion and other religions of the world" when they are in fact promoting their own religion. It is hypocritical to practice such dishonesty while preaching perfect virtue.

It reminds me of a teacher I had in primary school, who was a relic from the victorian age, and who taught us that it was wrong to lie, then lied to a school inspector in front of the whole class (claiming she had been encouraging us to write our own poetry, when she had done no such thing), and excused herself to us by claiming that it was a "white lie" and that it was permissable to lie if the lies were white. I can just imagine the BK administration seeing all their lies through white coloured spectacles ... its OK Bhai, they are pure lies, elevated lies, Godly lies ...

Ah, a traditional family run business!

Indeed - I had no idea of the family connections implied between Janki, Jayanti, and Lehkraj, by their shared surname ... full marks to me for naivety ... I wonder just to what extent the ruling elite of the BKWSU are all part of the same corporeal clan? This explains a lot too ...

I am not sure that becauase they share the same surname it is a family affair ... in Indian culture there are far fewer surnames than we have in the West ... take Patel for instance there are millions of them but not actually directly blood related

But, in my opinion, they are corrupt and dishonest (the BKs not the Patels :lol: ).

I am not sure that becauase they share the same surname it is a family affair ... in Indian culture there are far fewer surnames than we have in the West ... take Patel for instance there are millions of them but not actually directly blood related

But, in my opinion, they are corrupt and dishonest (the BKs not the Patels :lol: ).

There is a say in Gujerat, e.g. Patelville, "if you are walking along the road and you come across a cobra on one side and a Sindhi on the other; kill the Sindhi first!" Don't all the Patels come from the same 5 villages and intermarry?

If my memory serves me correct, in this case there is a blood relationship, Jayanti was introduced whilst still quite young through her family, can anyone qualify this?

There is a say in Gujerat, e.g. Patelville, " if you are walking along the road and you come across a cobra on one side and a Sindhi on the other; kill the Sindhi first! "

What is this about - why do the Gujaratis dislike the Sindhis? Is it do with Partition but then not all Gujarartis are Hindu and not all Sindhis are Muslim.

The Sindhis are known as the 'Jews of India'. Stinking, stinking rich. I attended a number of functions with Dadi and Jayanti of 'Sindhi service'. I spoke at a Sindi's house, in Westminster - a very large detached house complete with servants. A detached house in Westminster would be worth more than a lifetime's pay if you were the Prime Minister of England for 100 years. But every house I went to, though not quite as exclusive, told the same story. The second most financially successful group of people in India are Gujeratis. So I guess the animosity is one of financial rivalry.

It's been getting political.

Church lobby in win over charities watchdog

If Tony Abbott is elected Australia's prime minister on Saturday [7th September] he will abolish the watchdog established by Labor to keep an eye on the billions of dollars received and spent by Australian charities each year. Why? The answer, in part at least, may be the lobbying power of church conservatives, the Catholic Church in particular, and the office of Sydney Cardinal George Pell, more particularly still.

The pressure applied by the Sydney church through the charities debate has raised the question of the access and sway it may enjoy under Australia's first Catholic Liberal prime minister and his Catholic-strong frontbench that includes Kevin Andrews, Barnaby Joyce, Joe Hockey, Malcolm Turnbull (a convert), Andrew Robb and Christopher Pyne.

Religion has no place in politics, exploiting politicians or the electorate undeveloped brains. It generally appears to arise as a tool of manipulation, especially on the right wing. They pretend to be religious and so therefore moral or superior in order to be elected. I've always argued that the Brahma Kumaris are also politically a right wing organization.

What's wrong about a so called politico-religious movement like the Brahma Kumaris receiving tax credits via registering as a charity is that it spends most of its income (beyond keeping up all the buildings) on public relations (PR) and presents this as its "service" to humanity.

Is humanity really "served" by that, like the real charity of uplifting the poor or protecting the vulnerable etc?

In essence, Public Relations is "self-service", as in serving the interests of the Brahma Kumaris and most their leaders. It's not doing anyone else any good whatsoever. They promote themselves as religious to reap a percentage of the religious donations much of which are based on bizarre superstitions.

Even the upkeep of the big buildings is largely self-service. They blackmail adherents into coming by withholding the Murlis from them on one hand yet indoctrinating them into having to hear them every day to be a good little follower and to earn a high status in heaven. Again blackmail.

They could just treat their followers like adults and allow everyone to have their own copies of the Murlis and read them at home and, bingo, no overheads.

The main reason they don't is that it would lead to less donations too. The BKWSU has long been political and about social climbing for its leaders. As the BKWSU become more and more worldly, with all its corporate services, shops and products why on earth should it get tax credits? It should be made to do charity with what it takes.

These figures are for England/the UK only. It's still a little bit of a mystery how the local centers are financed and whether they still have to funnel all donations back to the HQ in London.

The greatest audacity, beyond claiming that their purpose is to "alleviate poverty", is that sincere individuals have to pay with their own hard earned money to support PR centers, the profits from which (donations) then go to the leaders to spend as they wish chasing VIPs and social climbing.

There's little democracy and, looking at the BKs' accounts, even less accountability. Who actually reviews whether the divinely self-appointed leadership has been successful in achieving any of the goals set out to them? No one. Their trustees are not trustees or bosses, they are their servants or tools.

Definition of PR

Public relations is about reputation - the result of what you do, what you say and what others say about you. Public relations is the discipline which looks after reputation, with the aim of earning understanding and support and influencing opinion and behaviour. It is the planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics.

Public relations (PR) is the practice of managing the spread of information between an individual or an organization and the public. Public relations may include an organization or individual gaining exposure to their audiences using topics of public interest and news items that do not require direct payment.

The aim of public relations by a company often is to persuade the public, investors, partners, employees, and other stakeholders to maintain a certain point of view about it, its leadership, products, or of political decisions. Common activities include speaking at conferences, winning industry awards, working with the press, and employee communication.